155361 - People v Benjamin Michael Bentz
Attorney Information
|
The
People of the State of Michigan,
|
|
Christopher M. Allen
Paul R. Spaniola
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
|
(Mason – Sniegowski, S.)
|
|
|
Benjamin Michael Bentz,
|
|
Douglas W. Baker
|
|
|
Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
Defendant’s daughter alleged that defendant
sexually abused her when she was 8 and 9 years old. At trial, the prosecutor
called Dr. Debra Simms to offer expert testimony about her examination of the
complainant. Dr. Simms testified that there were no physical signs of abuse,
but she gave a diagnosis of probable pediatric sexual abuse based on the
complainant’s “clear, consistent, detailed and descriptive” history. Defense
counsel did not object, but did cross-examine Dr. Simms regarding her opinions.
The jury convicted defendant of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual
conduct and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. On appeal,
defendant argued that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to object to Dr. Simms’ testimony, failing to object on hearsay grounds,
and failing to impeach the complainant. The Court of Appeals affirmed
defendant’s convictions in an unpublished per curiam opinion, with one judge
concurring separately. With regard to Dr. Simms’ testimony, the majority
concluded that defense counsel’s performance was not deficient, and the
concurring judge concluded that counsel did err in failing to object, but that
the error did not sufficiently prejudice defendant. The Supreme Court has
ordered oral argument on defendant’s application for leave to appeal to address
whether trial counsel’s failure to object to Dr. Simms’ testimony fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness, and, if so, whether there is a reasonable
probability that the outcome of defendant’s trial would have been different if an
objection had been made.